You are on page 1of 18

10 messages for 2010

Mountain ecosystems
10 messages for 2010
Mountain ecosystems

This document is the 8th in a series of '10 messages for 2010'. Each message provides a short
assessment focusing on a specific ecosystem or issue related to biodiversity in Europe. The
remaining messages will be published at various intervals throughout 2010. More detailed
information on the published and forthcoming messages can be found at www.eea.europa.eu/
publications/10-messages-for-2010.
Cover design: EEA
Cover photo © EEA
Left photo © EEA
Right photo © Stock.xchng
Layout: Pia Schmidt/EEA

Legal notice
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission
or other institutions of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or
company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information
contained in this report.

All rights reserved


No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording or by any information storage retrieval system, without a prior
permission in writing. For permission, translation or reproduction rights please contact EEA (address
information below).

Information about the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa
server (www.europa.eu).

© EEA, Copenhagen, 2010

Acknowledgments
The message was written by Marcus Zisenis (ECNC, ETC/BD), with contributions from Dominique
Richard (MNHN, ETC/BD). Martin Price (Perth College UHI), Amor Torre-Marin and Lawrence Jones-
Walters (ECNC), Luboš Halada, Peter Gajdoš, and Július Oszlányi (ILE SAS). Stephen Carver at
University of Leeds kindly produced Maps 1.1 and 1.2. Valuable comments were received from
Branislav Olah and André Jol (EEA), Marco Fritz (DG Environment of the European Commission),
the EIONET National Reference Centres (NRCs) and Sabine McCallum (ETC/ACC).

The EEA project manager of the '10 messages for 2010' is Frederik Schutyser.

REG.NO. DK- 000244

European Environment Agency


Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00
Fax: +45 33 36 71 99
Web: eea.europa.eu
Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries
Mountain ecosystems

Key messages

• European mountain regions provide essential ecosystem services for lowlands and host a great
diversity of habitats and species, many adapted to specific extreme climatic conditions.
• Mountain ecosystems are fragile and vulnerable, and face severe threats from land abandonment,
intensifying agriculture, impacts of infrastructure development, unsustainable exploitation and climate
change.
• Frameworks for cooperation are the basis for sustainable mountain management and development in
Europe. Long-term success depends on detailed implementation at regional and local levels.

1 European mountain regions provide avalanches. They maintain ecological processes and
essential ecosystem services for provide goods and services not only to mountain
lowlands people but also in lowlands where demand from
population centres, agriculture and industry is high
1.1 Mountain ecosystem goods and services (Regato and Salman, 2008; Table 1.1).
provided
Ensuring the continued delivery of such services
Mountain ecosystems play a key role in the water requires careful management of these delicate
cycle for lowland regions in Europe. They influence ecosystems. For example, the massive carbon store
temperature and precipitation, and modulate the laid down over thousands of years in mountain
runoff regime. Water from both rain and snow peatlands and organic mountain soils is not only
is stored in mountain vegetation and soils and an essential part of rare and threatened peatland
then gradually released. It transports sediments habitats but also a potentially huge source of further
downstream, providing nutrients for lowland climate warming if not managed appropriately.
areas, replacing fluvial and coastal sediments, and
contributing to groundwater recharge in lowland 1.2 Habitat and species diversity in European
areas. mountains

Mountain ecosystems contribute to preventing and Ranging from the Arctic to the Mediterranean
mitigating natural hazards such as landslides and and experiencing climates from the oceanic to the

Table 1.1 Examples of ecosystem goods and services provided by mountain ecosystems in
Europe

Provisioning services Regulating services Cultural services Supporting services


E.g. freshwater, fresh air, E.g. climate, water, air, E.g. recreation/tourism, E.g. ecosystem functions,
timber, food, renewable erosion and natural aesthetic values, cultural including energy and
energy supply. hazard regulation, carbon and spiritual heritage. material flow, such as
sequestration. primary production, water
and nutrient cycling,
soil accumulation, and
provision of habitats.

Source: Adapted from Harrison et al., 2010.

10 messages for 2010 3


continental, Europe's mountain ecosystems are Species endemism, in particular, often increases
highly diverse and cover 36% of the continent , with altitude within mountain regions, partly
including 29% of the European Union (EEA, 2010). due to the isolation of populations and speciation
Across the continent, forests cover 41% of the area of processes over geological time scales (Regato and
mountain ecosystems and over half of the area of the Salman, 2008; Nagy and Grabherr, 2009; Schmitt,
Carpathians, the mountains of central and south‑east 2009). For example, the Caucasus ecoregion has the
Europe, the Alps, and the Pyrenees. highest level of endemism in the temperate world,
with over 6 500 vascular plant species, at least 25%
As a result of sharp altitudinal gradients in both of which are unique to the region (Wilson, 2006). In
temperature and precipitation, habitat and species the rest of Europe, the highest number of endemics
diversity are generally higher in mountain areas and narrow range taxa are found in the Alps and
than in lowlands (Regato and Salman, 2008). the Pyrenees, with high numbers also in the Balkan
Mountain grasslands, for instance, show remarkable mountains, Crete and the Sierra Nevada, the
biodiversity, which is comparable to certain types of Massif Central, Corsica, and the central Apennines
tropical rainforests (EEA, 2002). To a large extent, this (Väre et al., 2003).
biodiversity derives from centuries of intervention
by people and their grazing animals; if grazing or The mountain regions of the Iberian peninsula
mowing decreases below a certain level, many of (excluding the Pyrenees) show a particularly high
these species are lost as plants of higher stature take number (64) of endemic Species of Community
over (Nagy and Grabherr, 2009). Interest listed in Annexes II and IV of the
EU Habitats Directive, followed by the Balkans
Although alpine areas above the treeline cover only (24). For individual massifs, the highest number of
3% of Europe's land surface, they host 20% of its Species of Community interest is found in the Alps
native vascular plant species. It is estimated that (24 endemic species), followed by the Carpathians
there are more than 2 500 species and subspecies of (18). The highest number of mountain Species of
alpine flora confined to or predominantly occurring Community Interest on islands are found on the
above the treeline. The proportion of species Canary Islands (30) (ETC/BD, 2010; Figure 1.1).
restricted to the alpine zone varies from less than
0.5% of the total flora in Corsica to about 17% in the Mountain areas are also at the heart of Europe's
Alps (Nagy et al., 2003). Numbers of vascular plants remaining wilderness areas. Maps 1.1 and 1.2 show
decrease from south to north, whereas numbers of that Annex 2 (Habitats Directive) species are located
cryptogams (bryophytes and macrolichens) show in wilderness areas protected under the Natura 2000
the opposite trend (Virtanen et al., 2003). network. Many of these are mountain areas.

Figure 1.1 Number of mountain Species of Community Interest (Annex II and IV of the
EU Habitats Directive) endemic to mountain regions, mountain ranges, and islands
of Europe

Number of endemic mountain species


70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
n
n

an

es

ps

ic

es

ra

ic

ia

ly

us
ne

an

nd

et

a
ia

ia

ia
ar

ar

ci
in
ei
ne

or
Al

pr
ge
lk
er

av

Cr
Si
ni

hi

la

rd
in

le
ad
Ba

Az

Cy
re

Ae
he
Ib

Is
pe

at

Ba
n

Sa
M
di

Py

rp
Bo
Ap

ry
an

a,
Ca

na

ic
Sc

Ca

rs
Co

Source: ETC/BD, 2010.

4 10 messages for 2010


Box 1.1 Biodiversity in Mediterranean mountains

The Mediterranean region has 13 000 endemic plant species — the second largest number among the
world's regions. The number of distinct elevation belts, geological variety, sharp latitudinal and broad
oceanic-continental gradients from coastal areas to inner mountain regions, and the frequent isolation of
mountains all contribute to the high diversity of the Mediterranean mountain flora.

Centres of plant diversity and endemism in the Mediterranean region are almost exclusively
high‑mountain areas. In particular, more than 20% of species are endemic in the Betic–Rifan complex on
either side of the Strait of Gibraltar; in the Middle Atlas and High Atlas in Morocco; in the Iberian Sistema
Central; on the islands of Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily; in the Pindos Mountains of Greece; and in Crete,
Cyprus, the southern mountains of Turkey (Taurus and Amanus) and the mountains of Lebanon. For
instance, 20–30% of the plants are endemic in the high summit pastures of the Greek island of Crete,
and 10–20% in the Taurus Mountains of Turkey (Medail and Quezel, 1999).

Map 1.1 Distribution of Annex 2 brown bear (Ursus arctos) within Natura 2000 site in
central and eastern Europe

Distribution of Annex 2
brown bear (Ursus arctos)
within Natura 2000 site
in central and eastern
Europe
Annex 2 areas:
Brown bear
Massifs

Wilderness quality index


High

Low

0 400 800 1200 1 600 Km

Source: © ORNL LandScan 2008TM/UT-Battelle, LLC; EEA Copenhagen 2007; DLR 2010; ESRI 2010. Analysis and cartography by
Wildland Research Institute (WRi), University of Leeds.­

10 messages for 2010 5


Map 1.2 Distribution of Annex 2 wolf (Canis lupus) within Natura 2000 sites in central and
eastern Europe

Distribution of Annex 2
wolf (Canis lupus)
within Natura 2000 sites
in central and eastern
Europe
Annex 2 areas:
Wolf
Massifs

Wilderness quality index


High

Low

0 400 800 1200 1600 Km

Source: © ORNL LandScan 2008TM/UT-Battelle, LLC; EEA Copenhagen 2007; DLR 2010; ESRI 2010. Analysis and cartography by
Wildland Research Institute (WRi), University of Leeds.­

Mountain habitats in Europe (mainly forests and Just as mountain biodiversity varies across Europe,
agricultural grasslands) are estimated to support so do human impacts on this biodiversity. Most
73 priority bird species and contain 558 Important research has been done on the Alps but factors such
Bird Areas (IBAs). More than half of these bird as the density of human activity and its impact
species are declining strongly in Europe or on biodiversity differs in ranges the Pyrenees
even threatened by extinction. Reasons include or Carpathians. This in turn affects mountain
inappropriate forest management, changes in biodiversity conservation policy.
agricultural practices and poorly planned tourism
development (BirdLife International, 2009).

6 10 messages for 2010


1.3 Low-intensity farming supports biodiversity 1.4 European mountains also support a rich
in European mountains cultural heritage

Low-intensity farming in Europe, particularly The specific environmental conditions and resources
livestock rearing and traditional cultivation of mountains — steep slopes, poor and shallow
methods, has created semi-natural habitats that soils, and extreme climate conditions — have
support a range of species such as species-rich also resulted in high cultural diversity and varied
grasslands, hay meadows and grazed wetlands. The adapted land-use practices that reflect traditional
functional diversity in many ecosystems depends knowledge, cultural and spiritual values (Regato
directly on traditional types of agricultural land use and Salman, 2008; NORDREGIO, 2004). People
and farming practices (Cerquiera et al., 2010). and nature together form diverse and rich cultures,
which attract tourists from the European lowlands
High Nature Value (HNV) farmland is typically and far beyond, supporting a large tourism industry
associated with low-intensity agriculture, especially in summer and winter (EEA, 2009).
grazing. Fifty-one per cent of Europe's HNV
farmland is situated in mountain areas (EEA, 2010;
Map 1.3).

Map 1.3 Distribution of High Nature Value (HNV) farmland and mountain areas in Europe

-30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70°
High Nature Value (HNV)
farmland and mountain
areas in Europe

HNV and mountain

Mountain, but not HNV


60°
HNV, but not mountain

Non-EU countries

50°
Outside data
coverage

50°

40°

40°

0 500 1000 1500 Km


0° 10° 20° 30° 40°

Note: Mountain definition (based on 1*1 km DEM)


Elevation > = 2 500 m
Elevation 1 500–2 500 m and slope > = 2°
Elevation 1 000–1 500 m and slope > = 5° or
Elevation 1 000–1 500 and local elevation range > 300 m
Elevation 300–1 000 and local elevation range > 300 m
Elevation below 300 m and standard deviation > 50 m
Minimum area > = 10 km2

Source: EEA, 2010 based on Nordregio/UNEP WCMC, 2004; HNV data: EEA-JRC project on high nature farmland; data source:
100*100 m HNV data, delivery May 2008; ETC-LUSI/EEA (March 2010): project 827 mountain areas; project leader:
Martin Price; GIS: Gebhard Banko.

10 messages for 2010 7


2 Mountain ecosystems are fragile Abandonment and intensified farming of
and vulnerable mountainous agricultural land is evident across
Europe (Map 2.1). Overall, the area of forest has
2.1 European mountain ecosystems face a increased since 1990. At the national scale, changes
complex of rapid changes in agricultural land use have been most marked in
the Czech Republic, especially from 1990 to 2000
Mountain ecosystems are fragile and vulnerable when the annual rate of land cover change was 1.3%
to changes due to their particular and extreme (EEA, 2010).
climatic and biogeographic conditions. In the Alps,
for example, the main pressures on mountain 2.3 Infrastructure development is a major cause
biodiversity are caused by changes in land use of fragmentation of mountain ecosystems in
practices, infrastructure development, unsustainable Europe
tourism, overexploitation of natural resources,
fragmentation of habitats, and climate change Lowland-focused policies that ignore the
(EEA, 2002). vulnerability and disadvantaged character of
mountains, and the high demand for mountain
European mountain regions, in general, are resources by lowland people, often worsen human
experiencing strong climate change (glacier retreat, pressures and environmental disturbances in
temperature increases, changes in precipitation), mountains (Regato and Salman, 2008). For example,
as well as land-use changes due to socio-economic constructing highways and motorways increases
pressures (EEA, 2009; EEA, 2010). Marginal land in the isolation and fragmentation of mountain natural
European mountain regions is being abandoned, environments and the number of physical barriers
while land use is being intensified on productive sites to the natural movement of many organisms
in the lowlands and along the bottoms and lower (UNEP, 2007).
slopes of mountain valleys (Hagedorn et al., 2010).
In specific locations, developing skiing
2.2 Biodiversity suffers from land use infrastructure can cause considerable damage to
intensification and abandonment soils and vegetation. Soils become more vulnerable
to water erosion, and hillsides with low vegetation
In comparison to traditional land-use practices, cover have higher water runoff levels, increasing
plant diversity is reduced in the alpine zone by both the risk of flooding lower areas. Producing artificial
intensification and land abandonment (Spehn and snow increases water consumption, which may
Körner, 2005). While agricultural management on disturb the hydrological cycle for habitats of high
economically profitable sites in the Alps is being conservation value such as bogs, fens and wetlands
intensified, remote areas or those with potentially at high altitude (EEA, 2002; EEA, 2009).
lower yields are being abandoned (Kampmann et al.,
2008). 2.4 Unsustainable exploitation threatens
European mountain ecosystem goods and
Mountain grasslands are very vulnerable to services
decreased use because activities such as regular
mowing are important for maintaining high species Mass tourism can pose a major threat to biodiversity,
diversity in certain grasslands (Galvánek and as development can lead to large-scale damage to
Lepš, 2008). In western Europe, such grasslands nature and landscapes. It also favours the introduction
are often abandoned in unprofitable locations with of invasive alien species into native habitats (UNEP,
steep slopes, poor soils or underdeveloped road 2007). Invasive species are being encountered at ever
infrastructure or where pastureland is infrequently higher altitudes (Pauchard et al., 2009).
used, becoming overgrown with bushes and trees
(Gellrich et al., 2007). In the Caucasus ecoregion, highly valuable
mountain forests are threatened by unsustainable
A study in the border area between Poland, management and exploitation in the form of
Slovakia, and Ukraine in the Carpathian mountains harvesting wood for fuel and the timber trade. This
revealed similar occurrences in eastern Europe. will lead to irreversible loss of biodiversity and the
Here, however, forces such as speculation, goods and services on which many local people
unemployment, land-reform strategies and changes depend (Williams et al., 2006).
in rural population density during the post-socialist
period also complicated matters by affecting land Hunting and poaching in the Carpathians generally
ownership patterns (Kuemmerle et al., 2008). focus on rare and endangered species such as

8 10 messages for 2010


Map 2.1 Withdrawal of farming in mountain NUTS 3 areas (percentage change in the period
1990–2000)

-30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60°


Withdrawal of farming in
mountain NUTS 3 areas
(% change 1990–2000)

0.00
60°
0.01–0.15
0.16–0.34
60°
0.35–0.77
0.78–1.49
1.50–2.29
2.30–4.71

Outside data
coverage

50°

50°

40°

40°

-20° Canary Is. -30°


Azores Is.
30° 40°
30°

30°
Madeira
-30° Is. 0 500 1000 1500 Km
0° 10° 20° 30°

Source: Price, 2008a, based on Corine Land Cover.

large carnivores, eagles, owls, chamois, marmots temperature and precipitation result in changes in
and many small invertebrates and plants. As their snow cover, glacier volume and extent, permafrost
populations are small and isolated, they may not and surface runoff (EEA, 2009). In the Alps, average
maintain long-term viability and become extinct temperatures increased by approximately 2°C
(UNEP, 2007). between the late 19th and early 21st centuries.
This was more than twice the rate of change in the
2.5 Climate change has severe consequences for Northern hemisphere as a whole (Auer et al., 2007)
European mountains and resulted in significant loss of glacial volume
(e.g. Zemp et al., 2007).
Climate change threatens important mountain
ecosystem services, including supporting rich The rising temperature will increase the proportion
biodiversity heritage and providing freshwater to of precipitation falling as rain instead of snow,
vast lowland areas. so that there will be more runoff in winter and
less in spring and summer (EEA, 2009). Changes
Climate change is affecting Europe's mountains in precipitation in the Alps have already been
in different ways. At the regional level, changes in associated with changes in vegetation (Cannone

10 messages for 2010 9


et al., 2007). The frequency of natural hazards such and adaptability to a changing environment and
as mudflows, floods and droughts is expected to may cause extinction in the long term.
increase. Climate change also affects many mountain
ecosystems directly and indirectly together with Species and habitats associated with water bodies,
other factors such as economic and planning policies flowing water, and wetlands are likely to be
(Price, 2008b). especially affected by the expected shifts in water
regimes. These include less precipitation and runoff
The sensitivity of mountain biodiversity to climate in summer and more in winter, runoff peaks earlier
change has been shown by models and validated by in the season, a shorter duration of snow cover and
in situ observations of phenomena such as upward melting of glaciers and permafrost.
shifts of vascular plants and changes in species
composition at Mount Schrankogel in the Austrian A temporary habitat enlargement can be foreseen for
Alps (Pauli et al., 2007). There are projections that some macrofauna in the Alps, for instance the ibex
the treeline could shift upward by several hundred (Capra ibex), the Alpine chough (Pyrrhocorax graculus),
meters (EEA, 2009; Figure 2.1), and evidence that and the rock partridge (Alectoris graeca). Other more
this process has begun in Scandinavia, the Urals, isolated species populations such as snow finch
the western Carpathians and the Mediterranean (Montifringilla nivalis), water pipit (Athus spinoletta)
(EEA, 2010). and ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus) are threatened by
global warming (Niedermair et al., 2007).
Flora and fauna are expected to migrate upwards
in order to stay within their bioclimatic envelope.
Evidently, however, there is no upward escape from 3 From international cooperation to
the top of a mountain. Sixty per cent of mountain local change
plant species in the Alps may face extinction by 2100
if they cannot adapt to climate change by moving 3.1 International and European policy recognises
northwards or upslope (EEA, 2009). the role of mountain ecosystems

2.6 Mountain species can only adapt to climate At the global scale, the importance of mountain
change to a very limited extent areas has been highlighted in Chapter 13 of
Agenda 21, entitled 'Managing fragile ecosystems:
Many alpine species have limited dispersal sustainable mountain development' (UN, 1992) and
capabilities (Nagy and Grabherr, 2009), and habitat by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention
fragmentation may further limit their mobility on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2010). In addition,
(Higgins et al., 2003). Small isolated populations face legal frameworks have been developed at the
bottlenecks, which decrease their genetic viability regional level for the Alps and Carpathians and are

Figure 2.1 Comparison of current vegetation zones at a hypothetical dry temperate mountain
site with simulated vegetation zones under a climate-warming scenario

Source: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 2009.

10 10 messages for 2010


under discussion for the mountains of south-east At the national level, the proportion of mountain
Europe and the Caucasus (UNECE, 2007). areas designated as protected (within the Natura
2000 network and under national legislation) is
The Alpine Convention, which was signed in 1991 particularly high. Mountains account for 43% of
and came into force in 1995, applies the 'polluter the total area of Natura 2000 sites in the EU-27
pays' principle, and supports cooperation between (Map 3.1). While 21% of mountain habitats within
the signatory states towards a holistic approach to these sites have a favourable status, 28% have an
protecting and preserving the Alps (Tappeiner et al., unfavourable-inadequate status and 32% have
2008; Treves et al., 2004). The Alpine Network of an unfavourable-bad status. The status of 18% of
Protected Areas is a particularly important outcome. mountain habitats (mainly in Spain) is unknown.

These international agreements and processes Further research is required to investigate these
indicate that there is adequate recognition at results in the light of the generally high level of
the European level of the need for international protection of mountain areas. Nevertheless, in most
cooperation. It is important to consider which countries, the proportion of habitat types with a
policies have been successful at regional and local favourable status is higher in mountain areas than
levels. elsewhere, sometime by a very significant margin.
This is true in both countries with large mountain
Within the EU-27, 92% of the total mountain area areas (e.g. Austria, Greece, Italy) and those with
has been designated as Less Favoured Areas (LFA). small mountain areas (e.g. Finland, Poland,
Seventeen per cent has been designated as HNV Sweden) (EEA, 2010).
farmland, with just 5% of this lacking LFA status.

Map 3.1 Distribution of Natura 2000 sites in mountain areas

-30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70°
Distribution of Natura
Canary Is. 2000 sites in mountain
-20°
areas
30°
Natura 2000 sites
Mountain massifs
Alps
60°
Apennines
-30° Azores Is.
Atlantic islands
Balkans/
40°
Southeast Europe
British Isles
Madeira Is.
Carpathians
Central European
middle mountains 1
50° (BE andDE)
Central European
middle mountains 2
(CZ, AT and DE)
Eastern
40° Mediterranean islands
French/Swiss middle
mountains
Iberian mountains
40° Nordic mountains
Pyrenees
Turkey
Western
0 500 1000 1500 Km Mediterranean islands
0° 10° 20° 30° 40°

Source: EEA, 2010.

10 messages for 2010 11


3.2 Economic, social, and environmental However, there are many complex interacting
factors need to be integrated in management reasons for negative trends in biodiversity, which
strategies for mountains and other are often driven by national forces (e.g. employment
ecosystems in Europe and income imbalances), European activities
(e.g. Common Agricultural Policy) and even
Mountain regions in Europe vary not just in terms global policies. This implies a need to integrate
of their biogeographic environmental conditions but management strategies, which should be developed
also their political and socio-economic circumstances and implemented with the active participation of
(EEA, 2009; NORDREGIO, 2004). In addition, our the public concerned and the relevant stakeholders
knowledge of these very diverse environments (Partidário et al., 2009; Fonderflick et al., 2010).
varies greatly with, in particular, much more
knowledge regarding the Alps than other regions Measures to increase ecological connectivity are
(EEA, 2010). particularly important, especially within and
between the many mountain ranges along national
European and international legal frameworks can borders (Worboys et al., 2010). As for each major
serve as tools to mitigate severe pressures such ecosystem type in Europe, it is essential to monitor
as climate change through targets and actions to the success of regional mountain biodiversity
reduce greenhouse gas emission reductions agreed actions and to undertake applied research (Borsdorf
at global (UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol) and EU levels, and Braun, 2008) and targeted public relations
and to adapt to some inevitable climate change. (UN, 1992; CBD, 2010; GMBA, 2010).

12 10 messages for 2010


Further reading

Auer, I.; Böhm, R.; Jurkovic, A.; Lipa, W.; Orlik, A.; EEA, 2008. Impacts of Europe's changing climate —
Potzmann, R.; Schöner, W., et al., 2007. 'HISTALP — 2008 indicator-based assessment. EEA Report No
historical instrumental climatological surface time 4/2008. EEA, Copenhagen. Available at: www.eea.
series of the Greater Alpine Region'. International europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2008_4 [Accessed
Journal of Climatology 27, no. 1: 17–46. doi:10.1002/ 30 June 2010].
joc.1377.
EEA, 2009. Regional climate change and adaptation. The
BirdLife International, 2009. Safeguarding the Alps facing the challenge of changing water resources.
future of Europe's Mountain Habitats. BirdLife EEA Report no. 8/2009. European Environment
International, Cambridge. Available at: www. Agency, Copenhagen. Available at: www.eea.
birdlife.org/datazone/case_studies/conventions2. europa.eu/publications/alps-climate-change-and-
html [Accessed 30 June 2010]. adaptation-2009 [Accessed 30 June 2010].

Borsdorf, A. and Braun, V., 2008. 'The European EEA, 2010. Integrated assessment of Europe's mountain
and Global Dimension of Mountain Research. An areas. EEA, Copenhagen. Forthcoming September
Overview'. Journal of Alpine Research 96-4: 117–129. 2010.
Available at: http://rga.revues.org/index630.
html#bibliography [Accessed 30 June 2010]. Fonderflick, J.; Lepart, J.; Caplat, P.; Debussche, M.
and Marty, P., 2010. 'Managing agricultural change
Cannone, N.; Sgorbati, S. and Guglielmin, M., 2007. for biodiversity conservation in a Mediterranean
Unexpected impacts of climate change on alpine upland'. Biological Conservation 143 (3): 737–746.
vegetation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.12.014.
5(7): 360-364. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[360:UIO
CCO]2.0.CO;2 Galvánek, D. and Lepš, J., 2008. 'Changes of
species richness pattern in mountain grasslands:
CBD, 2010. In-depth review of the implementation abandonment versus restoration'. Biodiversity and
of the Programme of Work on Mountain Biological Conservation 17(13): 3241-3253. doi: 10.1007/s10531-
Diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological 008-9424-2.
Diversity, Montreal. Available at: www.cbd.int/doc/
meetings/sbstta/sbstta-14/official/sbstta-14-02-en.pdf Gellrich, M.; Baur, P.; Koch, B. and Zimmermann,
[Accessed 30 June 2010]. N. E., 2006. 'Agricultural land abandonment and
natural forest re-growth in the Swiss mountains:
Cerquiera, Y.; Araújo, C.; Vicente, J.; Pereira, H. A spatially explicit economic analysis'. Agriculture,
M. and Honrado, J., 2010. 'Ecological and Cultural Ecosystems & Environment 118(1-4): 93–108.
Consequences of Agricultural Abandonment in doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.001.
the Peneda-Gerês National Park (Portugal)'. In:
Evelpidou, N.; de Figueredo, T.; Mauro, F.; Tecim, GMBA. 2010. Global Mountain Biodiversity
V. and Vassilopoulus, A., (eds.). Natural Heritage Assessment. 2010. Mountain biodiversity portal.
from East to West. Case studies from 6 EU countries. Available at: www.mountainbiodiversity.org
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 175–182. [Accessed 30 June 2010].

EEA, 2002. Europe's biodiversity — biogeographical Haeberli, W.; Hoelzle, M.; Paul, F. and Zemp, M.,
regions and seas. Biogeographical regions in 2007. 'Integrated monitoring of mountain glaciers
Europe: The Alpine region – mountains of Europe. as key indicators of global climate change: the
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. European Alps'. Ann. Glaciol., 46: 150–160.
Available at: www.eea.europa.eu/publications/
report_2002_0524_154909/alpine.pdf [Accessed Hagedorn, F.; Mulder, J. and Jandl, R., 2010.
30 June 2010]. 'Mountain soils under a changing climate and

10 messages for 2010 13


land‑use'. Biogeochemistry 97(1): 1–5. doi: 10.1007/ Partidário, M. R.; Sheate, W. R.; Bina, O.; Byron, H.
s10533-009-9386-9. and Augusto, B., 2009. 'Sustainability Assessment
for Agriculture Scenarios in Europe's Mountain
Harrison, P.A.; Vandewalle, M.; Sykes, M. T.; Berry, Areas: Lessons from Six Study Areas'. Environmental
P. M.; Bugter, R.; de Bello, F.; Feld, C. K.; Grandin, Management 43(1): 144–165. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-
U.; Harrington, R.; Haslett, J. R.; Jongman, R. H. 9206-3.
G.; Luck, G. W.; Martins da Silva, P.; Moora, M.;
Settele, J.; Paula Sousa, J. and Zobel, M., 2010. Pauchard, A.; Kueffer, C.; Dietz, H.; Daehler, C. C.;
'Identifying and prioritising services in European Alexander, J.; Edwards, P. J.; Arévalo, J. R.; Cavieres,
terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems'. Biodiversity L. A.; Guisan, A.; Haider, S.; Jakobs, G.; McDougall,
and Conservation. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9789-x K.; Millar, C. I.; Naylor, B. J.; Parks, C. G.; Rew, L. J.
(in press). and Seipel, T., 2009. 'Ain't no mountain high enough:
plant invasions reaching new elevations'. Front Ecol
Higgins, S. I.; Lavorel, S. and Revilla, E., 2003. Environ 2009; 7(9): 479–486, doi:10.1890/080072.
'Estimating plant migration rates under habitat loss
and fragmentation'. OIKOS, 101, 354–366. Pauli, H.; Gottfried, M.; Reiter, K.; Klettner, C. and
Grabherr, G., 2007. 'Signals of range expansions and
Kampmann, D.; Herzog, F.; Jeanneret, P.; Konold, contractions of vascular plants in the high Alps:
W.; Peter, M.; Walter, T.; Wildi, O. and Lüscher, A., observations (1994–2004) at the GLORIA master site
2008. 'Mountain grassland biodiversity: Impact of Schrankogel, Tyrol, Austria'. Global Change Biology
site conditions versus management type'. Journal 13(1): 147–156. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01282.x
for Nature Conservation 16(1): 12–25. doi:10.1016/j.
jnc.2007.04.002. Price, M. F. 2008a. Regional and territorial development
of mountain areas. Integrated assessment of Europe’s
Kuemmerle, T.; Hostert, P.; Radeloff, V. C.; van der mountain areas. ETC Land Use and Spatial
Linden, S.; Perzanowski, K. and Kruhlov, I., 2008. Information, Bellaterra.
'Cross-border Comparison of Post-socialist Farmland
Abandonment in the Carpathians'. Ecosystems 11(4): Price, M. F., 2008b. 'Maintaining mountain
614-628. doi:10.1007/s10021-008-9146-z. biodiversity in an era of climate change'. In:
Borsdorf, A, J. Stötter and E. Veulliet (eds.).
Médail F. and Quézel, P., 1999. 'Biodiversity Managing Alpine Future. Proceedings of International
Hotspots in the Mediterranean Basin: Setting Global Conference October 15–17, 2007. Austrian Academy of
Conservation Priorities'. Conservation Biology 13 (6), Sciences Press, Vienna: 17–33.
1510–1513.
Regato, P. and Salman, R., 2008. Mediterranean
Nagy, L. and Grabherr, G., 2009. The Biology of Alpine Mountains in a Changing World. Guidelines
Habitats. Oxford University Press, Oxford. for developing action plans. IUCN Centre for
Mediterranean Cooperation, Malaga. Available
Nagy, L.; Grabherr, G.; Körner, C. and Thompson, at: www.iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/
D.B.A. (eds.), 2003. Alpine Biodiversity in Europe. offices/iucnmed/resources/publications/?1960/
Ecological Studies Vol. 167. Springer-Verlag Berlin Mediterranean-Mountains-in-a-Changing-World-
Heidelberg New York 2003. ISBN 3-540-00108-5. Guidelines-for-developing-action-plans [Accessed
30 June 2010].
Niedermair, M.; Lexer, M. J.; Plattner, G.; Formayer,
H. and Seidl, R., 2007. Klimawandel & Artenvielfalt Schmitt, T., 2009. 'Biogeographical and evolutionary
Wie klimafit sind Österreichs Wälder, Flüsse und importance of the European high mountain systems'.
Alpenlandschaften? Österreichische Bundesforste AG. Frontiers in Zoology 6:9. doi:10.1186/1742-9994-6-9.

NORDREGIO, 2004. Mountain Areas in Europe: Spehn, E. and Körner, C., 2005. Global Mountain
Analysis of mountain areas in EU member states, Biodiversity Assessment. Global Mountain Biodiversity
acceding and other European countries. European Assessment (GMBA) of DIVERSITAS, Basel.
Commission contract No 2002.CE.16.0.AT.136. Final Available at: http://gmba.unibas.ch/publications/pdf/
report. Nordic Centre for Spatial Development, GMBA2005.pdf [Accessed 30 June 2010].
Stockholm. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/
regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/study_ Tappeiner, U.; Borsdorf, A. and Tasser, E. (eds.),
en.htm [Accessed 30 June 2010]. 2008. Alpenatlas. Atlas des Alpes. Atlante delle Alpi.

14 10 messages for 2010


Atlas Alp. Mapping the Alps. Society – Economy – plants in the European alpine areas'. In: Nagy.
Environment. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, L.; Grabherr, G.; Körner, C. and Thompson, DBA
Stuttgart. (eds), Alpine biodiversity in Europe. Berlin: Springer:
133–148.
Treves, T.; Pineschi, L. and Fodella, A. (eds.), 2004.
Sustainable Development of Mountain Areas: Legal Virtanen, R.; Dirnböck, T.; Dullinger, S.; Grabherr,
Perspectives Beyond Rio and Johannesburg. Giuffre G.; Pauli, H.; Staudinger, M. and Villar, L., 2003.
Editore, Milano. 'Alpine biodiversity in space and time: A synthesis'.
In: Nagy, L.; Grabherr, G.; Körner, C.; Thompson
UN, 1992. Earth Summit. Agenda 21. The United DBA (eds), Alpine biodiversity in Europe. Berlin:
Nations Programme of Action from Rio. United Springer: 149–172.
Nations, New York. Available at: www.un.org/esa/
dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml [Accessed Williams, L.; Zazanashvili, N. and Kandaurov,
30 June 2010]. A., 2006. An Ecoregional Conservation Plan for the
Caucasus. 2nd ed. WWF Caucasus Programme
UNECE, 2007. Cooperation and frameworks for the Office, Tbilisi. Available at: www.wwf.de/fileadmin/
protection and sustainable development of mountain fm-wwf/pdf_neu/Kaukasus_OEkoregionaler__
regions in Europe. ECE/CEP/AC.11/2007/19. United Naturschutzplan__May06.pdf [Accessed 30 June
Nations Economic and Social Council, New York. 2010].
Available at: www.unece.org/env/documents/2007/
ece/cep/ac.11/ece.cep.ac.11.2007.19.e.pdf [Accessed Wilson, A., 2006. An Ecoregional Conservation Plan
30 June 2010]. for the Caucasus. WWF Caucasus Programme Office,
Tbilisi. Available at: http://ecologic.eu/download/
UNEP, 2007. Carpathians Environment Outlook 2007. projekte/1900-1949/1939/brochure_ecp_caucasus_06.
Chapter Three: State of the Carpathians' Environment pdf [Accessed 30 June 2010].
and Policy Measures. United Nations Environment
Programme, Chatelaine. Available at : www. Worboys, G. L.; Francis, W. L. and Lockwood, M.
grid.unep.ch/product/publication/keo/CH_3.pdf (eds.), 2010. Connectivity Conservation Management:
[Accessed 30 June 2010]. A Global Guide. Earthscan, London.

UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 2009. 'Impact of Climate Zemp, M.; Paul, F.; Hoelzle, M. and Haeberli, W.,
Change on Mountain Vegetation Zones. UNEP/ 2007. 'Glacier fluctuations in the European Alps
GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library'. 1850–2000: an overview and spatio-temporal
Available at: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/ analysis of available data'. In: Orlove, B., Wiegandt,
impact-of-climate-change-on-mountain-vegetation- E. and Luckman, B. (eds.), The darkening peaks: Glacial
zones [Accessed 30 June 2010]. retreat in scientific and social context. University of
California Press: pp. 152–167.
Väre, H.; Lampinen, R.; Humphries, C. and
Williams, P., 2003. 'Taxonomic diversity of vascular

10 messages for 2010 15


European Environment Agency
Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark

Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00
Fax: +45 33 36 71 99

Web: eea.europa.eu
Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries